Thursday, June 14, 2018

Does the Trump administration feel a special affinity for
autocrats? Does it make a special effort to offend traditional American allies in
Western Europe and Canada? Does Trump reject democratic nations in favor of
dictatorships led by strong men? Or does he disdain the actions of weak men?

In a long and worthwhile article today Caroline Glick
explains the policy:

Trump’s
actual doctrine is that the U.S. will help its allies and foes when they pursue
goals the U.S. shares. And the U.S. will spurn allies – and enemies — who
expect America to do their bidding as they mistake posturing for policymaking,
and attitude for work.

Rather than simple-mindedly compare the Trump attitude
toward North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and Canadian prime minister Justin
Bieber, Glick compares the Trump relationship with Israeli prime minister
Benjamin Netanyahu to his relationship with Canadian prime minister Justin
Bieber.

Glick could have compared the way the two
prime ministers were treated on their last visits to India. Whereas Netanyahu
was greeted as an honored guest, a leader of a strong ally, Canada’s Trudeau
was basically ignored by the Indian government. Canada’s ever-so-politically
correct leader pranced around in Indian costumes, dressing inappropriately,
insulting the Indian people, and looking like a clown.

To explain the Trump relationship with Netanyahu Glick
quotes from a recent and excellent New Yorker article by Adam Entous. It is well worth a
read.

It begins with the Netanyahu relationship with Obama.
Atbest, it was contentious. At worst,
it was hostile.

Skip to the summer of 2014. Then, after Hamas murdered three Israeli teenagers and then attacked Israel, Obama sided with Hamas and against Israel.

Glick describes the events:

Second,
in the summer of 2014, Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim
Brotherhood, kidnapped and
murdered three Israeli teenagers. In its follow-up to the massacre, Hamas
launched a massive missile and rocket war against Israel.

Israel referred
to the war that ensued as Operation Protective Edge. Qatar and Turkey served as
Hamas’s diplomatic representatives and defenders.

Rather
than side with Israel in its war against the Hamas terror regime, as all of his
predecessors had done to varying degrees, Obama sided with
Hamas and its state sponsors, Qatar and Turkey, against Israel.

Obama
insisted that Netanyahu accept Hamas’s ceasefire conditions and walk away with
no guarantee that Hamas would end its rocket and missile offensive against
Israel.

Obama’s
embrace of Iran and effective alliance with Hamas through Turkey and Qatar were
the last straws for Israel.

As often noted on this blog, Netanyahu saw an opportunity to
develop good relations with Sunni Arab states. He took it. Obama had already
alienated these states because of his betrayal of Hosni Mubarak, his support for the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood and his efforts to appease Iran.

While Obama was siding with Hamas, leading Sunni Arab states sided with Israel:

As
Obama insisted Israel accept the Turkish-Qatari ceasefire offer – that is,
Hamas’s ceasefire conditions — Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia all sided with
Israel against Hamas – and Obama. They rejected Hamas’s ceasefire conditions
and embraced Israel’s positions entirely. Their stunning public support for
Israel compelled Obama to walk back his pressure on Israel.

And then, along came Trump. In their first meeting with
then-candidate Trump both Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer presented
him with a vision for a new relationship between America and Israel. They
recommended that Trump take the lead in advancing the Israeli and American
alliance with Sunni Arab states. As you know, this has come to pass.

Recognizing
that American interests were better served by confronting Iran and Hamas than
by strengthening them, Trump flew first to Saudi Arabia, and then continued on
directly to Israel. Trump embraced and built upon the foundations Netanyahu had
developed in order to advance Trump’s own vision of American needs in the
Middle East. In particular, Trump charged U.S. allies with taking serious steps
to advance the common goal of constraining and defeating Iran and Sunni
jihadists.

And then Glick introducesda tale of two leaders, a
comparison between the Netanyahu constructive approach to foreign policy with
the feckless and mindless Trudeau approach:

Whereas
Netanyahu — out of concern for both developing strategic ties with the incoming
Trump administration and for mitigating the damage Obama’s policies had wrought
on Israel’s national security — presented Trump with clearly articulated plans
for achieving Trump’s own goals, Trudeau chose to ignore trade, despite
a certain looming showdown over the issue with the Trump administration.

In
other words: rather than accept that once Trump was elected, the Canadians
would need to accept a new trade relationship with the Americans, Trudeau
adopted positions on NAFTA that made it impossible to reach a deal.

For the
past six months, Trudeau has managed to alienate U.S.
trade representative Ambassador Robert Lighthizer. Canadian representatives
have refused
to consider, let alone respect, reasonable U.S. concerns about trade
tariffs, automobile manufacturing, and other key aspects of NAFTA and bilateral
trade.

Instead
of seeking compromises that could advance the interests of both countries, or
at a minimum limit the damage that new U.S. trade policies would cause the
Canadian economy, Trudeau pretended away the issue — hoping, apparently, that
Trump would disappear if Trudeau just ignored him.

Trudeau never wanted or never knew how to negotiate in good
faith with America on trade. And then, he larded it all over with politically
correct claptrap:

Consequently,
rather than engaging seriously with American negotiators — as the Mexicans are
— Trudeau has added insult to injury by slapping
progressive social engineering provisions regarding indigenous,
gender, and worker rights onto Canada’s trade policies. Trudeau is apparently
attempting to use bilateral trade to dictate the Trump administration’s social
policy.

In
other words, Trudeau has embraced posturing
over substantive policymaking. Rather than presenting Trump with a deal
that could make sense for the U.S. and Canada, Trudeau has presented himself as
a progressive hero, standing up to the Left’s greatest enemy.

Glick makes a salient point. Trudeau is posturing, making
himself a progressive hero. He takes himself for a leader of the Resistance. And then, when Trump calls him out, the armies of
the American progressive left wail about how Trump is not treating him with
respect.

Clearly, Trump is trying to realign American relations. People
have misunderstood this:

… when
Trump criticizes American allies for expecting the United States to defend them
and pay for the privilege, he isn’t doing it to blow off steam. Trump believes
that for alliances to be meaningful, they have to be alliances between
independent states that come together to pursue common interests.

True,
the U.S. is the strongest party. But it cannot be expected to do what its
allies could do themselves yet refuse to do. When Trump discusses NATO reform,
there can be little doubt that he envisions an alliance of states that actually
defend themselves.

Obviously, the Western European nations that have been
enjoying a free ride, especially when it comes to their defense, are now up in
arms when they see the bill coming due. After all, they embody everyone’s most cherished
ideals. How dare Trump call them out as wastrels whose grandiose social welfare
experiments are underwritten by an American military that protects them and for which they do not pay a fair price?